The enforceability of employment bonds for specialized positions is upheld when executed voluntarily, with the bond amount justified as necessary for institutional integrity.

JUDGMENT

The writ petitioner completed her M.V.Sc degree from the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University in the year 2017 and was thereafter appointed as the Assistant Manager at the Regional Semen Bank, Kannur of the Kerala Livestock Development Board Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), by Ext.P1 appointment order dated 19.05.2018. At the time of joining, she was directed to execute an agreement with the Board undertaking to serve the Board for a minimum period of 5 years from the date of joining duty and in the event of resignation or discontinuing from service, at any time within a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of service, she shall pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages to the Board. She claims that, she executed the bond since the first job in her life was dear to her. In the meanwhile, she had cleared the examination for appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon, Grade-II, conducted by the PSC. She was issued with Ext.P3 order from the Animal Husbandry Department of Government of Kerala, appointing her to the post of Veterinary Surgeon. She submitted Ext.P4 representation requesting the Board to relieve her to enable her to join the Animal Husbandry Department. Board took the stand that, she will be relieved only on payment of the bond amount. Claiming that the enforcement of bond was highly unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of rights of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and that, she was not imparted with any training at the time of joining the Board, she has approached this Court with this Writ Petition. She relied on Ext.P5 O.M. issued by the Central Government dated 29.07.2004, by which, an employee who leaves the government undertaking should be permitted to continue the bond period with the new undertaking, in which the employee joins. She also placed reliance on the decision reported in Hemant Tyagi v. Uco Bank [W.P(C).No.8500/2016] to contend that, she was not liable to pay the bond amount. The prayer in the writ petition was to declare that, Ext.P2 was bad in law and to quash it, and to direct the Board to issue relieving order to the petitioner. She also sought a declaration that the amount covered by Ext.P2 was exorbitant and disproportionate to the expenses incurred by the Board in training the petitioner.

2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a detailed common counter affidavit contending that the writ petition was not maintainable. It was contended that the primary objective of the Board was to provide for developmental activities in the field of cattle breeding, production and supply of frozen semen, procurement and supply of liquid nitrogen, supply of A inputs, fodder development, training to farmers-officials etc. The Board was also functioning as an implementing agency of various Central-State Government schemes in the state, in relation to cattle's development. The Board has the best advanced technology for frozen semen facility in India. For continuing the supply of frozen semen (required for artificial insemination in cattle) in the state, the Board has to maintain A grade for its semen stations awarded by the Central Monitoring Unit (CMU), a professional body under Government of India. The core functions of the Board are being carried out by the professionals of both Animal Husbandry and Agricultural wings in the Board. The primary challenge is against Ext.P2 bond executed between the petitioner and the second respondent, which is not vitiated by any fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or undue influence